Allowed

M.Maruthathal v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Madras HC9 Jul 2025HCP(MD)/221/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court quashed the order because the detaining authority failed to furnish a translated copy of a vital English document relied upon, thereby depriving the detenu of the right to effective representation under Article 22(5).

What did the court decide?

Quashing of detention order MHS.Confdl.No.82 of 2024 and direction to release the detenu Velmurugan forthwith unless detained in another case.

M.Maruthathal Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

HCP(MD)No.221 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.221 of 2025

M. Maruthathal

... Petitioner

vs.

State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.

¶12

The District Collector and District Magistrte, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order passed in MHS.Confdl.No.82 of 2024, dated 05.10.2024 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e., Velmurugan, aged about 30 years, S/o. Muniyasamy, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶15

Page No.1 of 7

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

HCP(MD)No.221 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. N. Pragalathan

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. ]

¶22

The petitioner is the mother of detenu viz., Velmurugan, S/o. Muniyasamy, aged about 30 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in MHS.Confdl.No.82 of 2024, dated 05.10.2024, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

¶23

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶24

Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detaining authority, in the detention order, has stated that the detenu is a history-sheeted rowdy. The history sheet referred at Page No. 87, Page No.2 of 7

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

HCP(MD)No.221 of 2025

¶27

Part II of the Booklet is in English. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.

¶28

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

¶29

respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. He Would further submit that though the detenu was not furnished with translated copy of document at Page No.87, Part II of the Booklet, on that score

¶30

alone, it cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

¶31

5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.87, Part II of the Booklet, furnished to the detenu, is in English. Non furnishing of translated copy of the vital documents would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.

¶32

6. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed

¶33

Page No.3 of 7

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

HCP(MD)No.221 of 2025

¶36

that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a representation effectively against the detention order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:

¶37

''9. However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of such a document would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order. But it would not be so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of non-supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language.

¶38

Page No.4 of 7

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

HCP(MD)No.221 of 2025

¶41

16. For the above reasons, in our view, the nonsupply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.''

¶42

6. We find that the above cited Powanammal 's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that non-furnishing of translated copy of the document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No.87, Part II of the booklet. This non furnishing of translated copy to the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.

¶43

7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in MHS.Confdl.No.82 of 2024, dated 05.10.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Velmurugan, S/o. Muniyasamy,

¶44

Page No.5 of 7

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

HCP(MD)No.221 of 2025

¶47

aged about 30 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 09.07.2025

¶49

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No trp

¶50

To:

¶51

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.

¶52

The District Collector and District Magistrte, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶53

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

¶54

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madars High Court, Madurai.

¶55

Page No.6 of 7

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

HCP(MD)No.221 of 2025

¶58

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.

¶59

trp

¶60

ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.221 of 2025

¶61

DATED : 09.07.2025

¶62

Page No.7 of 7

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Maruthathal v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Maruthathal v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kohila Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Vignesh Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Petchiyammal Vs The State of Tamilnadu

The Managing Director Vs Sudha

Murugambal Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Senthil @ Kannan @ Kumar @ Minnal Vs The State of Tamil Nadu